Reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing

It might give them power on IP valuation and kind of connecting investors with companies that are holding IP.

And, you know, we've also seen the Munich Courts share their own guidelines on FRAND, on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory licensing.

So this is something that's quite fresh, and I'm sure we've all covered that.

But we really need to see how that lands, which cases start referencing this, and maybe if it goes beyond Munich, Where else are these guidelines going to land? I know that SAP holders are quite happy with them.

The problem is that, on the one hand, these patent owners are entitled to not have their patent infringed, but on the other hand, we don't want them holding up technological advancement.

The solution devised by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute is that such patent owners must undertake to grant a license to implementers of the technical standards on terms that are fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory, or FRAND for short.

This allows implementers to develop new products while also ensuring that patent owners are fairly compensated.

In these proceedings, the implementer is the well-known car brand Tesla.

The licensing platform is operated by Avanci, who are also based in Delaware.

The idea is that the implementer pays a single fee to Avanci and then have access to all of the relevant patents on the platform instead of having to negotiate with individual patent holders.

Tesla considers that the fee is too high and therefore infringes on FRAND.

A claim was launched against Interdigital and Avanci where Tesla argued that a lower fee should be set by the court.